Media Bias

[Cunt]

Yeah, it doesn't mean you can't blame both.

I said I think it's about 100 times as bad.

[Sean Hayden]

Being upset about logos sounds pretty stupid.

[Hermit]

Yeah, it doesn't mean you can't blame both.

Logos do not increase the amount of litter. Therefore you cannot blame them or the companies that put them on packaging that finishes up as litter.

[Cunt]

I'm not. That 'gross thing' is the litterbug.

The gross thing I'm disliking, is their use of litter to spread their logo around.

I think it's worse than any one litterbug. Think of all the ink they waste, advertising deliberately on rubbish.

[Cunt]

[JimC]

I'm not. That 'gross thing' is the litterbug.

The gross thing I'm disliking, is their use of litter to spread their logo around.

I think it's worse than any one litterbug. Think of all the ink they waste, advertising deliberately on rubbish.

Seeing logos on buildings etc. is one thing. To me, seeing logos on disgusting, discarded trash puts me off that product...

[Sean Hayden]

--doesn't matter, unless you actively avoid the brand you're more likely to just reach for what's familiar...supposedly...

[Cunt]

--doesn't matter, unless you actively avoid the brand you're more likely to just reach for what's familiar...supposedly...

I'd like to think it puts me off the product, too. I think I'm more vulnerable to marketing than I wish.

And the evidence is there - most litter is branded. It MUST work, or a brutal, competitive marketplace would eliminate it.

[JimC]

--doesn't matter, unless you actively avoid the brand you're more likely to just reach for what's familiar...supposedly...

I'd like to think it puts me off the product, too. I think I'm more vulnerable to marketing than I wish.

And the evidence is there - most litter is branded. It MUST work, or a brutal, competitive marketplace would eliminate it.

They don't put logos on stuff to be seen while it's litter, they put them on for display before they are litter.

[pErvinalia]

Not what I said, but I don't blame you for trying to find something to claim I'm wrong about.

The litter is bad, lets say a '10-level' bad. The corporations printing their logos on the trash, knowing it will be littered about by 'bad humans' is a higher kind of bad. I would say '100-level' bad.

You still haven't explained this bizarre notion. Why is putting a logo on packaging bad (and 10 times as bad as people littering)? Man your brain gets hung up on some strange things. I don't think it works properly.

[Cunt]

Lets pretend you KNOW that a large number of dirty humans litter.

If you then decide to spend enormous amounts of ink, placing your logo on that litter, it seems even more shitty than littering.

Doesn't it?

[pErvinalia]

Seeing the logo on litter is likely to put people off, not encourage them to buy the product. Interestingly Dominoes Pizza took logos off their boxes a while ago, stating it meant they could spend more money on making your pizzas great. The logos are back on the boxes.

[Cunt]

Seeing the logo on litter is likely to put people off, not encourage them to buy the product.

That would be my thought, if I thought people thought about this stuff.

However, evidence in the form of expensive and carefully researched inks are everywhere, proving lots of people think it works.

How much extra money do you think is spent, labelling trash in this exact way?

I might be a bit harder on the marketing people than is fair, but do you think they play fair?

[pErvinalia]

However, evidence in the form of expensive and carefully researched inks are everywhere, proving lots of people think it works.

Likelihood of you providing any of that evidence.... zero.

[Cunt]

The evidence is everywhere. Look at the next ten pieces of litter you see. If you are in a city, some are nearly certain to have corporate logos.

If it caused corporate embarrassment as you suggest, they wouldn't keep spending ink on it.